click to show more information

click to hide/show information About your Search

20130416
20130424
STATION
MSNBCW 8
CNNW 3
FBC 1
KPIX (CBS) 1
MSNBC 1
LANGUAGE
English 16
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)
made without a miranda warning or made while he's not really competent between times when he's sedated and not sedated. so they may be risking their death penalty, but they may be doing it for a good reason. they may need realtime intelligence, but i don't think that the public safety exception will stand up for allowing them not to have given the miranda warnings. >> fascinating. in fact, i have a lot of questions about that i'm going to get to. and actually i want to bring in another colleague as well right now. steve razor is a former military judge advocate general and knows a thing or two about this military issue. typically, steve, we hear about a 48-hour window and this is a very new area of justice. this has only been in sort of parlay for the last couple of years. we are far outside of that 48 hours by today. but can it be extended in the case of public safety? and exactly when can you establish that a public safety exemption has expired or is no longer of concern? how long can you keep him from getting miranda? >> well, there's no hard and fast rule on that. and that's exactl
miranda rights to keep him in a gray area right now whether or not he would be considered an enemy combatant or information that he would be allowing to investigators may not be used against him if he were try to be tried as an american civilian. as i talked there with roger about the fact that congressman peter king over the weekend said the homeland is the battlefield and that times have really changed, what are your thoughts about what the congressman has said about the fbi and that they may have missed red flags and the fact that the homeland is the battlefield? >> as you know, thomas, the fbi conducts thousands of interviews like this. i will say that they do a good job. i would say unless there was some evidence that would lead them to not do something to this individual, i would say they did a good job. i think my colleague, peter king, is not just monday morning quarterbacking but arm chair quarterbacking. we don't no what our investigative authorities know. i would say let them do their job. we can comment but when we start pointing fingers, i think we just add to the conf
by federal authorities. but in the beginning, he will not be given the usual miranda warning about the right to remain silent. instead, the government will invoke a rule that allows questioning a suspect without giving advice of rights. >> there is a public safety exemption in cases of national security, and central charges involving acts of terrorism, and so government has that opportunity right now. >> the government invoked that same rule in the case of the so-called underwear bomber. as in his case, it allows questioning to learn of any potential plots or accomplices that could present a continuing threat. >> the first questions the fbi will focus on are specific threats that he might be aware of. likely, are there any other improvised explosive devices? were there other people working in the network? the sorts of things that go directly to whether or not there's a continuing threat to public safety. >> reporter: he'll face charges brought by the justice department, because terrorism is a federal crime with a trial in a regular civilian court. and as in other high profile terrorism cases
not get his miranda rights. >> among of group of republicans calling for the boston bombing suspect to be considered an enemy combatant. that means he would not have the same constitutional protection as a regular citizen, with regard to what he says as the investigation moves forward. will this happen? california congressman, a senior member of the intelligence committee. congressman, always good to see you. i know that you disagree with the congressman and think that the suspect is in custody. is entitled to his miranda rights. why? >> well, i think the administration is handling it exactly correct. there is a public safety exception under the miranda allowing law enforcement to interview him, making sure there are no other bombs, threats, perpetrators still out there giving the law enforcement flexibility to do the that prior to miranda and i think the court will interpret it broadly and give them the time they need to make sure that the public is safe. after that, he will have to be mirandized, doesn't mean the end of cooperation, but no basis yet to conclude they should be trea
be charged as early as today. investigators did not read him his miranda rights when he was captured. they invoked what they call the public safety exception. it permits law enforcement officials to interrogate a suspect and use that information as direct evident in court, and that is causing some controversy out there. let's talk about that. we'll talk about that in a few moments. also want to talk about other issues. joining us, former u.s. attorney doug jones who led the prosecutor against eric ruduffel, the 1996 atlanta olympic bomber. thank you for joining us. first of all, let's talk about this video. this video that has now surfaced that cnn has confirmed, a well known jihadist in dagestan who himself was killed in december, the video was posted on tamerlan tsarnaev's youtube channel. since then, it's been deleted. what does that say, if you're a u.s. attorney investigating this case, what does that say to you? >> well, wolf, i think it would be one of two things. there obviously could be some contact since he traveled over that way. there could have been some contact. there c
okayed the suspension of the suspect's miranda rights. is that a temporary suspension? >> reporter: yes, by law it is. it's called the public safety exception to the miranda rule. normally you have to tell someone they have a right to remain silent and if you don't, then you can't use anything they tell you in court. so that's why the miranda warning is given. but there is an exception. you don't have to do it if there's a possible threat to public safety. and here obviously there's a concern about whether there are potential accomplices. investigators say they haven't found any. or other explosives. they say they haven't found any of those either but that's what they want to ask him. and this exception probably begins to expire the moment you invoke it so it's probably no good for more than a day or two but nonetheless they can do that. afterwards they'll have to give him his miranda warning and say whether he'll continue to answer questions. the justice department says even in very serious cases like this, most people in custody do continue to talk. >> pete, who's going to be interrog
this suspect, they'll read the miranda rights and all of that. they're going to try to find out if this individual who has now been arrested acted alone as a so-called lone wolf or was part of some broader conspiracy, walk us through what the fbi is about to do. >> sure. well, wolf, they will -- they will take him into custody, they will give him his miranda rights because they want to be sure any statement the individual may make is admissible in court during the prosecution. if the individual agrees to talk, there will be -- they will take a statement and they will also likely confront him with forensic evidence and things that they have learned, photographs, they will ask him to identify how he constructed the bomb, how he knew to construct the bomb, who, if anyone, he worked with, who he communicated with, they'll want to -- they will want to make sure to take when he's arrested any cell phones, blackberries, pocket litter, pieces of paper, notebooks he may have on him and they'll want to have him retrace for them his steps. they will then send other investigators out to try
/11 of last year. should he be given miranda rights? should he be treated as an enemy combatant? that debate has started. give me the facts, first, what they'll do. >> this administration has made a policy decision here. first, that's number one. secondly, he cannot be tried as an enemy combatant in a military tribunal, because that law was changed by the national defense authorization act of 2012 that says you can't do that to an american citizen. what some advocates, republicans, are saying such as lindsey graham are -- we understand he's going to be tried in civilian court, but start the questioning. treat him as an enemy combatant under the law of war. question him by intelligence people. get all the intel you can. then turn him over to the civilian authorities. that's what they advocate. that's not going to happen, the administration has decided. he'll be questioned first by this special group set up in the last couple of years in terror cases called the high value detainee interrogation group, fbi, cia, dod. they will question him without giving him a miranda warning. r they don't have
. they didn't give a miranda warning so the aclu is shouting about that. and of course, well-known southern bell lindsey graham, why isn't he being treated as an enemy combatant? that one to me -- >> what about benghazi? >> shut up. >> stephanie: i'll always have benghazi. it is my terror. no. >> i would never go thirsty again. i'll have another mint julep thank you. >> stephanie: the legal expert i heard this weekend said this is a nonstarter to treat him as enemy combatants. did he a crime on u.s. soil. >> peter king said this. >> i believe -- should be portrayed as enemy combatants. senator mccain, senator graham, senator ayotte, there are so many questions unanswered so many potential links to terrorism here. the battlefield is now in the united states. i believe he is an enemy combatant. ultimately, he will be tried in a civilian court and the statements taken from him cannot be used against him in that trial. right now, the only links we have as much as chechnyan involvement in the islamic movement. are there other conspirators out there? where do they get the radicalization? >> he so
this person without reading miranda rights because -- >> you're saying in foreign custody? >> even in u.s. custody there are situations now where a lot of people would say, you don't need to read miranda rights right away. this decision -- if a very strong suspect is picked up or somebody could provide significant information, i think that decision, whether or not to mirandize could be -- >> presumably as the fbi is going through this, they are looking to make sure there are no secondary attacks, first priority, right, imminent threat. >> absolutely. >> and second of all, to make sure they maintain the possibility of ultimately getting a criminal conviction? >> absolutely. >> joining us is an eyewitness to the bombing. he ran the marathon and was in the medical tent when the explosions happened. joining us by phone from boston. describe what you were doing in the medical tent at what time and what the scene there was like. >> yeah. the first thing, this was wave three, so i was running -- i was a charity runner, so we started at approximately 10:40 a.m. then i finished just under four,
. >> the supreme court's case in which miranda gave a course confession. said confessions have to be knowing, meaning you have to tell the person they don't have to confess, they don't have to talk to you. numerous supreme court cases have picked up on this and said the government must always tell you when you're confronted with a government you don't have to speak to the government. protecting the freedom of speech also protects the right to remain silent. but the supreme court said most people don't don't have the right to remain silent. so you, government, fbi or travel cup have to tell whoever you are interrogating they have the right to remain silent. that is what is not being honored, from what we understand. whatever he said could affect other evidence that independently obtained. it is risky not to read miranda rights and a violation of the constitution not to do so. so the government treads in danger when they try to strike information and somewhere we will not use that against the defendant. tracy: the emotional side of me says too bad. speak of the. >> the emotional side if he wan
. within 10 hours he was read his miranda rights. critics on capitol hill say the intelligence community was unable to fine him for information as to how the empty developed. the underwear bomber eventually convicted and in super max prison in colorado. harris? >> harris: federal authorities tried to sake him alive unlike his brother who published in thy were really trying hard. why is it difficult to get that designation as an enemy combatant? >> well, for one, he's an american citizen. by law he can't be sent to guantanamo bay, can't be tried in a military commission. there are cases where americans were deemed enemy combatants and tried to federal court. jose padilla for one. in the case of dzhokhar tsarnaev authorities have not found a link to an al-qaeda-linked group, and therefore no court in the u.s. would necessarily uphold the president as commander in chief as designating him an enemy combatant. legally this would be shaky, i'm told, by experts. even if the alleged bomber is deemed an enemy combatant, he still has a right to an attorney. he doesn't have to talk unless he wants
department plans to begin questioning tsarnaev before reading him his miranda rights, saying investigators need immediate information on any attacks that may be in the works. the pressure is on to learn exactly where this trail of bloodshed began. >> reporter: this is jim axel rod in boston. for those who knew the tsarnaev brothers, the questions are personal. >> who would do something like this? >> not him. reporter: larry aaronson was once a teacher at the high school the younger brother, dzhokhar attended. >> i know this kid to be compassionate. i know this kid to be forth coming. he's a great athlete. he's a sportsman. he's never been in trouble. >> reporter: the two brothers who are ethnic chechens came to the u.s. with their family a decade ago. facing the vicious fighting... escaping the vicious fighting between the government and the largely chechen rebel. dzhokhar who became an american citizen on september 11 of last year is 19 years old. he was a student at the university of massachusetts dartmouth. his older brother tamerlan was 26 years old, married to an american woman with a
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)